OZKOK’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably Hector Tito Lujan-Armendariz v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Mauro Roldan-Santoyo v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (2000), Moosa v. Immigration & Naturalization Service (1999)
33 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (§ 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1251 (§ 241 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Dickerson v. New Banner Institute, Inc. · Matthews v. United States · Pino v. Landon · Aguilera-Enriquez v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Pino v. Nicolls
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“As a general rule, a conviction will be found for immigration purposes where all of the following elements are present: (1) a judge or jury has found the alien guilty or he has entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or has admitted sufficient facts to warrant a finding of guilty; (2) the judge has ordered some form of punishment, penalty, or restraint on the person’s liberty ....; and (3) a judgment or adjudication of guilt may be entered if the person violates the terms of his probation or fails to comply with the requirements of the court’s order, without availability of further proceedings regarding the person’s guilt or innocence of the original charge.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]e find no rational or legal reason for according ... two aliens different immigration status based on the criminal procedures of the states where they committed a crime.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Rubio v. Sessions“a conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude may not support an order of deportation if it has been expunged.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.